Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Evaluation
Overall the most attractive exhibits are eSplice, Flashsticks and Linguisticator that indicate higher visitation and consistent interactions. Noticeably these stands have an effective foundation in common. The stands offer the visitor a unique innovative learning product which keeps the consumers intrigued, engaged through curiosity, and testing products through social participation. There must be some form of visitor satisfaction in order to keep strong engagements between exhibitors and visitors.
Many factors and contingencies can affect social behaviour in participation. From observation; (based partly on Rossman’s 2003 symbolic interaction approach) The research interpretations are of key elements:
Processes in Social Behaviour of Interactive Participation at The Language Show Live
Methodology
The research project is exploratory, using philosophy as an interpretivist approach, using qualitative and quantitative research through non participant and systematic observations (Fox et al, 2014).
Empirical research, (involves collecting data based on observation) gathering a small convenience sample of 280 visitors, was equally divided between 14 exhibits. Monitored by a stopwatch as collective data instrument.
Conclusion
Fig.3 Identifies a trend in continuous flows of large movement between the visitor pathways and the exhibits in the external layer of the ‘Technology Zone’ (green ring). The internal area was sporadic in movement and mainly with individuals, couples and smaller crowds (blue ring).
Fig. 2
Results
Graph showing the grade of interactions between exhibits and attendees.Please note there are limitations that could have affected or skewed the results.
• Positive participations were from stands such as eSplice, Flashsticks and Linguisticator (Fig 1).
• Weak engagements were from stands; Genee World, My Learning (UK) Ltd and Langlion (Fig 2).
ReferencesFox, D., Gouthro, M.B., Morakabati, Y. and Backstone, J. (2014) Doing Events Research, From theory to practise. Oxon: Routledge.
Getz, D., O’Neill, O. and Carlsen, J. (2001) ‘Service Quality Evaluation at Events through Service Mapping'. Journal of Travel Research, Sage Publications, 39(4), pp.380-390.
Berridge, G. (2007) Event Design and Experience. Oxford : Butterworth-Heinemann.
Investigation Brief
The aim was to identify which exhibits in the ‘Technology Zone’, highlights more attractiveness to the attendees in part relation to visitor experience.
The objective was to analyse the interaction period between individuals and stands.
Research Questions:
• Is there a trend between the pathway of visitors and stands.
• Is there a pattern between stands and the grade of social interaction.
• What are the prior contingencies.
Fig.1
Fig.4 Reveals a trend, how highest indications of interactions are from the lower segment (green box) of the ‘Technology Zone’ in contrast to lower forms of participation in the upper section (blue box).
Fig.3 Fig.4
Product (Object)
Staff Responsiveness (Interacting people)
Physical Settings Recommendations
To sell space to exhibitors with innovative unique learning technological products. So that visitors have a variation rather than products with similarities.
To have exhibitors use blueprint principle, (Getz et al, 2001) to avoid visitors seeing front of stage slip to back stage. Elements such as playing with mobiles, back facing the audience and leaving stands empty, affects staff responsiveness.
Using Rossman’s Model of six elements of symbolic interaction can be used to reflect on how visitors experience is structured. (Berridge ,2007).
Shareen [email protected]
Large flow
Small flow
Weak interactions
Strong interactions
